Why George W. Bush will win in 2004
By Trevor Bothwell
web posted March 1, 2004
Republicans are growing increasingly anxious about the
reelection of President George W. Bush this November. Their
concerns are entirely valid given the president's spending history,
his leniency toward illegal immigrants, and some recent opinion
polls showing John Kerry leading Bush. But while it's never wise
to underestimate the competition, they should bear in mind the
president's primary advantage: Most Americans understand -- or
will realize come autumn -- that this election is about national
security.
Incidentally, Democrats realize this too, which explains their
incessant attacks on Bush's Air National Guard service during
Vietnam, where Terry McAuliffe accused the president of going
AWOL despite the fact he was granted an honorable discharge.
Attacking George W. Bush's military record during the 2000
election didn't work, so they're apparently resorting to their
favorite strategy: Repeat lies often enough until you can convince
people they're true.
We've seen this strategy played out repeatedly during the past
two years: Bush is "stupid"; he "lied" us into war; "Big Oil!" The
problem with this infantile slandering is that President Bush isn't
an idiot -- he has an MBA from Harvard Business School (say
what you want about his intellect; many a privileged son have
gotten the boot from HBS); Americans know it takes skill and
character to be a fighter pilot; and they understand that Congress
-- the same Congress that granted Bush permission to declare
war on Iraq -- had available the same intelligence data on
WMDs that Bush had.
So even if Democrats feign patriotism and hawkishness (to wit:
as in the 2002 midterm run-up) from now until November,
there's every reason to believe that their relentless maligning of
the current commander-in-chief has already begotten their ruin.
However, assuming the Democratic Party in general hasn't
already driven away too many moderates to regain the
presidency, there are still several reasons their prospective
nominee might (my prediction: a Kerry/Edwards ticket).
First, John Kerry is almost as exciting as a barium enema. Have
you heard his speeches following his primary wins? The guy
looks like he's going after the Walter Mondale Award for
Motivational Speaking instead of the highest office in the land. I
think this is one big reason we've seen John Edwards close the
voting gap after the primaries in Virginia and Wisconsin. Aside
from that sexy boyish grin, Edwards' stump speeches at least
keep voters awake long enough for them to hear him promise to
arrange some slip-and-fall suits should a Republican Congress
refuse to increase welfare subsidies during his term.
Second, assuming the new JFK gets the nod, Kerry's insistence
upon degrading Bush's previous military service (during a war, of
all times) is not only indicative of his apparent disdain for our
military, but it demonstrates an absence of character that I'm not
sure we even witnessed in Bill Clinton (seriously). Any "leader"
who is so self-absorbed as to not only tout his own military
record, but berate those who have served their country in any
capacity -- the irony of Kerry's self-congratulation regarding
Vietnam after famously badmouthing his fellow veterans
notwithstanding -- does not possess the integrity required to befit
the office which he seeks.
In short, only a liberal would attempt to imply that Bush's military
service 30 years ago is a greater issue than his current war
record -- which in only two years includes the successful
overthrow of the Taliban, the capture of Saddam Hussein, and
the elimination or capture of two-thirds of al-Qaeda terrorists,
not to mention the liberation of the Afghan and Iraqi people.
Ironically, the leadership Bush exhibits today likely was
fashioned in large part by way of the military service John Kerry
et al. are again attempting to disparage.
Which leads to my final point. Whereas President Bush
possesses clarity of vision, John Kerry shifts positions frequently.
Kerry voted against the Gulf War in 1991, but now says he
favored it; he voted for the Iraq war, but now says he's
opposed; he says he favors reconstruction in Iraq, but voted
against the $87 billion to fund it; he used to think the Patriot Act
was the best thing since marrying a gazillionaire, but now
condemns it as an assault on civil liberties. Look, its one thing to
change your mind after history proves you wrong; it's totally
another to be an opportunist willing to talk out both sides of your
mouth.
America is finally on the offensive in confronting terrorism, led
currently by a president who has strayed from his base on
occasion, but who nonetheless remains true to his convictions
where it counts -- keeping us alive.
Whether the Democrats can convince enough Americans to buy
into their irrelevant accusations before the November elections is
not the issue. The fact that their rhetoric is being used to conceal
their complete absence of a better war strategy, or a better
overall path for the security of the country, is.
The Democrats know this is their problem. I'm betting that most
Americans know this, too. And that's why President Bush will
win. Again.
Trevor Bothwell is editor of The Right Report and is a
Townhall.com book reviewer. He can be contacted at
bothwell@therightreport.com.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com